20 July 2010, RePosit kickoff meeting
@ Mile End, Queen Mary University of London
Attendees:
Lizzie Dipple (Symplectic), Sarah Molloy (Queen Mary), Richard Jones (Symplectic), Rachel Proudfoot (Leeds), Bo Middleton (Leeds), Claire Parry (Queen Mary), Jodie Double (Leeds), Jill Evans (Exeter), Ian Tilsed (Exeter), Nicola Cockarill (Plymouth), Ellie James (Keele)
Regrets:
None
Chair - Bo Middleton (Leeds)
Agenda: 10am to 4pm
1. Introductions (who are we? what do we do?)
2. Overview of partners (what's happening at each site).
10 mins for each HEI partner on the following:
- stage of implementation at each site (meaning Symplectic/repository link)
- what's in the repository at the moment
- what workflow has previously been used to get content into the repository
- what advocacy has previously been undertaken
Comfort break
3. Expectations (what I think is going to happen in the project). 5 mins for each attendee on the following:
- what I want to get from this project
- what issues will the project (or the particular site) need to address
Lunch (good sandwiches BTW :)
4. The RePosit project proposal (what we said we'd do and what we need to tweak)
5. JISC expectations (what we need to do) - documentation (blog etc), meetings, 'site visit'
6. Project plan (what are we actually going to do and who is going to do it)
7. Admin (other stuff). Future meeting dates (and chair/note taker for each). Budget/expenses.
8. AOB
9. Run to train
MEETING NOTES:
Where is each site up to at the moment, what content is in the repository, what are the workflows?
Exeter:
Jan 2009 up and running with Symplectic with deposit button due to go live autumn 2010, repository coming in-house in summer 2010. DSpace platform. ERIC went live in 2007. Slow start but picked up in 2008 due to advocacy work, peaked early 2009. Now back to slow dribble in. Currently 1652 items (mainly pdf articles) with a good spread across subject areas.
Academics mainly self-submit, then to a holding area and checked by subject librarian and also copyright checked and cleared (a particular problem in arts and humanities). 20 submissions per month as a maximum. N.B. around 32,000 items in Symplectic. Discussion of mandate currently underway. New PVC of research. Research information agenda and mandatory deposit is on the agenda.
Leeds:
E-prints 3 way split among the 3 partner HE institutions. Currently around 7,500 items. Mandate is in draft but will be re-worked and reworded. Publication database has been long embedded into the workflow. Full text deposit is the next evolution/phase. Awareness is patchy (but better at higher management levels) and understanding of OA is scattered at best. Mixed coverage of uptake for deposit (best in engineering). Deposit on behalf of academics - work with department admins (very labour intensive way to get content). 30% self deposit, for copyright checking there is a risk management approach and depends upon materials, when connector goes live determining how workflow changes will be the question. File types and dark archive are on the roadmap. Multi-media and other non-publication items are deposited in LUDOS (DigiTool) and theses are deposited into separate repository as well. Went live with Sympelctic 18 months ago. Content mainly general articles. Trying to encourage deposit at point of pre-publication.
Keele:
There was no comprehensive publications database prior to last RAE submissions and that manual process was a driver to source Symplectic - which went live in 2008. The academics love it (especially in health and sciences). A library liaison officer post at Keele, which would have had some responsibility for the repository was withdrawn due to the funding cuts, Ellie manged Keele’s RAE submission and so continues in the role in preparation for REF. Keele has conducted advocacy for at least the last year, presenting to various research groups, and holding ad hoc drop in sessions. Work has just completed linking Symplectic to Keele’s T4 content management systems for academic profile pages, which will also include the repository items. The information from Symplectic can be used to populate academic CV and for grant applications, which should encourage uptake. In the future hope to use Symplectic data for academic promotions. Intralibrary is their provider / repository. Repository policy will be to allow academics to self archive, with a take down policy (copyright risk management approach). The repository is absolutely empty and will start by end of Summer.
Queen Mary:
N.B. Claire has been covering Sarah’s maternity leave and so will be leaving the project soon.
Cataloguing team in Queen Mary does the data checking, and a copyright librarian works through checking the metadata and dealing with copyright issues. 2 years ago they just had Symplectic, prior to that there was a RAE database. Previously part of SHERPA project but only 5 example papers stayed and nothing grew. Just like Keele in the same boat as getting Symplectic was a need to have as everybody has one. Repository live internally since late March 2010. Now approx 40 approved full-text articles, 9 electronic theses, 320 unfinished submissions (in three months). About to do training sessions (autumn/spring terms) on open-access, etc. for publications web pages. Some academics have been asking about the repository already (driver - increased citation rate). No mandate but drawing up policy document at the moment.
Plymouth:
Had an admin intensive, paper-driven RAE submission. Went live with Symplectic on Friday and plans to roll out to all schools by December. DSpace has been in place for 2 years, in a repository called PEARL. Research centres have been set up and Symplectic will help to provide information for monitoring and KPIs.. Is hoping to put PGRs on Symplectic. Aim is self service submission. Risk management approach vs. checking all items (lack of staffing). Joint advocacy for Symplectic and PEARL. Will have mandate for theses submissions in Oct 2010. Need to focus advocacy on senior management as well as academics. Symplectic project is a joint project between the Universities of Plymouth and Exeter and so will need multiple repositories submission routes.
Project Overview:
Project is about advocacy on deposit of full text, how to get people to think about depositing as opposed to simply approving citations in their publication database.
One stop shop… as faculty are asking about.
Keele, showcase research, citations (for non-subscription based), positive correlation to deposit and citation, oppcit bibliography, OA and increase in citation.
Deposit good for:
Recruiting: students can view all research outputs from future
Academic CV:
OA driver
Stewardship of public funds by giving out research outputs
Access routes
Common issue is that data feeds from HR are confusing and muddled.
What do we want out of the project:
Bo: Workflow and coping with change at a large institution in order to scale up. Perhaps pilot group for advocacy. Ensuring that the project is a success.
Issues - Multiple repository and timelines for integration. Branding is also part of the outcomes,
Nicola: Springboard for advocacy. Senior staff champions then trickledown effect.
Issues - Multi-university system issues (2 repositories, 1 Symplectic interface, 2 URLs to one front page) and branding of the 2 universities - Exeter and Plymouth. Decisions around advocacy relating to staff engagement and recognition of Symplectic and PEARL and whether staff need/should know about the repository as a separate entity. Different materials for different audiences in the Uni
Richard: Improving use, and engage more with the community, help the user community in order to build new tools enhancements interested in other areas that Symplectic can be use for research life-cycle. Improvements for next version of SWORD. Also interested in SONEX use case scenarios. Re-purpose training tools.
Sarah: Branding, Queen Mary Research Online as a service, advocacy and research. Advocacy around actual depositing academics (already have senior high-level support).
Issues - How to integrate the two systems (repository and deposit interface). Looking at the system as a whole. Does a launch create a counterproductive PR situation where people think it’s outside of normal activities?
Ian: Shared ownership (between Library and Research departments). ‘New blood’ for advocacy work. Research strategy going forward.
Issues - Workflows. Capacity planning for disk space (inc. financial restrictions). Capacity on all levels, human and computer. How to deal with the medical school and deal with the duplicate staff records and appointments. Political roadblocks and sorting out how to represent each site.
** Advocacy training materials can be generic in scope and then broken down to specific installations/institutions.
Ellie: Make her focus on the repository as she is being pulled in various directions. Create a outreach program that explains how the product is there to make the academics’ lives easier.
Issues - How much buy-in and uptake we will get? How to get everybody enthused and part of their general routine. Should there be a launch event or slow roll-out?
Lizzie: The bottom line for a successful project is increased deposits.
Issues - How do we get what we need delivered and measured? Training materials in a variety of institutions - important outputs not specific to Sympelctic. System agnostic. Buy-in from academics even needed just for them to go to workshops and for user survey.
Jodie: Learn from each other’s experience. Branding and roll-out and integration of all systems. Training and outreach incorporating preservation.
Issues - How to cope with the fact that Leeds has 3 repositories. Branding and workflow through the entire life-cycle, getting content in and versioning. Issue/opportunity.
** As deposit numbers increase, measuring both the acceptable and non-acceptable items in order to see if training materials are working and what needs to change. Increase the number of people in addition to the number of items. Capturing the full item list would be useful. Capturing the full percentage of outputs to entries. If there is no mandate then it is difficult to determine what is the true number? How to embed into the research life-cycle? Part of a larger outcome.
Rachel: Consolidation of the process and increase in deposits. Get feedback from the academics to see what they want. Opportunity to step back in a neutral way and listen.
Issues - Integration with external repositories and how to deal with that (mandates for multiple deposits in multiple systems).
Jill: Connecting with repository world. Awareness and engagement with academics. Increase deposits.
Issues - Exeter is a research-intensive institution with a current ethos of high-quality data. Will this be compromised by lower metadata quality if the repository is opened up? Staff resources.
Richard: Project Proposal
Going through the project proposal to discover what are the barriers to deposit in order to increase awareness and deposit numbers.
High level goal is to make deposit easier by overcoming the 3 barriers in 1.1
7 deliverables.in 1.13
(vi. and vii are part of the final report)
1.7, 1.10 and 1.11 - Literature review and review of past projects for next meeting in Exeter
JISC said yes to the bid provided there were some changes. Conditions for funding from JISC, making sure whatever we did was widely disseminated.
1.13 - Build a user community space, so that the wider HE deposit community can see what is happening and be connected during project as opposed to simply disseminating at the end.
Marketing and advertising are no-go words: events will be training events, no marketing but advocacy. Project will be under increasing scrutiny and therefore need to be careful with wording when we are out in the community, sensitive to language and final wording in addition to wording all along the way.
Project success will be measured on hits on the project blog. Model and outputs will be widely disseminated. Events to be for the wider community.
JISC Expectations:
JISC documentation requirements:
Within a fortnight, fill out a core project resources form. A team photo is required. Project summary. Decide upon 9mth vs. 1 year. 12 months was decided around the end of the meeting when events were being mapped out.
JISC would like frequent updates on the project blog. Jiscreposit Gmail account. Posts at least once a month with various voices posting. 7 sections for the project outputs. Hopefully it will be less onerous for all involved in the project.
Put the project blog in sig files, #reposit for twitter. Posts will be shared amongst all partners to share the load, longer posts will occur after events. Lizzie will set up and do first post.
End date and start date: 1 June was proposed start date. 20 July is now the current start date. Delayed starting due to delayed funding notification from JISC and OR 2010.
Extending the dates are OK, will look at those in the future.
Deliverables: 1.13
Measure baseline now for each institution
Track full text vs. metadata only
Romeo blue or green setting would be good
Current contents in the repository measured against the potential deposits. Richard to see if there is technical solution to find out number of potential deposits.
Google group for sharing documentation, link for blogging.
Literature for workshops, review of lessons learned, 4 reports and 4 universities
Key lessons learned to shape advocacy and training
Literature Review:
Leeds – IncReASe
Exeter – EM-Loader
Keele – Embed
Plymouth – Cambridge Tetra Repositories Enhancement Project (CTREP)
QMUL – Embedding Repositories in Research Management Systems and Processes
Symplectic – review of other HEIs using repository tools
Three steps: (i) review specified report and post summary on project blog, (ii) read summary reviews of all others, (iii) use these findings as a springboard to work out the who, what, how for the workshops
Monday 16 August 2010 to get initial actions completed in addition to project plan and accounts.
Workshop possibilities
- Coffee mornings
- 1:1 training
- Large forums where general information sharing
When we have learned and shared outcomes of literature review then we will know how to shape the workshops.
1. Literature review
2. Absorbing content
3. What does it mean?
4. How will this shape training?
There will be 2 workshops at each HE institution. Understanding where to focus and who will do and how to do the workshop. At least one partner present at another institution’s roll-out to learn and share experience.
Ideally there will be a mixture in the end for various levels of training materials so that institutions can share and change as needed.
User survey tool link for Symplectic front page - will design at X point in time. Start thinking through what we want to learn from the survey, may be different for each site.
One institution will be a test run of the training materials and either all sites can be present or video conference the meeting. Possible test run and recording of session in order to get one under the belt prior to full presentation. Think of how we may wish to present our materials (paper, web etc...)
Dissemination:
Arma or AUA conference, investigate what events would be good for slotting. Need more brainstorming in this area to look at possible other conferences etc... to disseminate information.
Project now running for 12 months
Ian, Ellie, or Jodie happy to go to program meetings
Admin:
In the next month agree to a consortium agreement, if people need to go through the legal department, let Bo know asap.
Invoice Leeds for project time costs. Travel costs via Leeds expenses system.
Project Actions:
IT – Ian Tilsed, University of Exeter
JE – Jill Evans, University of Exeter
EJ – Ellie James, Keele University
BM – Bo Middleton, University of Leeds
JD – Jodie Double, University of Leeds,
RP – Rachel Proudfoot, University of Leeds,
NC – Nicola Cockarill, University of Plymouth
SM – Sarah Molloy, Queen Mary, University of London
CP – Claire Parry, Queen Mary, University of London
RJ – Richard Jones, Symplectic Ltd
LD – Lizzie Dipple, Symplectic Ltd
HEI – Higher Education Establishment
Action | Person Responsible | Date for completion |
Admin and set-up: |
|
|
Email phone numbers and addresses to Lizzie to disseminate contacts list to all (or put details directly into Google docs spreadsheet) | All/LD | asap |
Set up project blog, write first post and email round the details | LD | 23/07/10 |
Set up project Twitter account | IT | 23/07/10 |
Set up permanent short URL for project blog on Twitter, and put Twitter feed on blog | RJ | 23/07/10 |
Create and administer project Google group for sharing documentation | JD/RP | 23/07/10 |
Email Gmail details to Bo/Jodie if you want to access Google group via that logon | All | 23/07/10 |
Fill in JISC required forms: SLA, DOAP | LD | 03/08/10 |
Put project blog link on email signatures (and websites where applicable) | All | 16/08/10 |
Put travel expenses form up on Google docs | BM | 16/08/10 |
Check their expenses set-up, invoice Leeds for project time | All HEIs | 16/08/10 |
Co-ordinate date of next meeting | BM | 16/08/10 |
Book meeting room at Exeter once date set | IT | ? |
Co-ordinate requirements for all-day workshop (including note-taker) | IT, JE, NC, LD | ? |
Finalise consortium agreement | All | 20/08/10 |
Publish project plan | LD/RJ | 20/08/10 |
Ensure dark chocolate biscuits for future meetings | All | |
|
|
|
Project work: |
|
|
Discover if there is a means of automatically calculating number of potential deposits (measuring actual against number of citations in Symplectic Elements). | RJ | ? |
Find out baseline figures for each HEI: number of unique depositors (excluding theses if possible), number of holdings (full-text and metadata only), potential holdings. Put on project blog. | All HEIs | 16/08/10 |
Literature review – read designated project reports to find key lessons learned, plus any resources available. Put summary findings on project blog for others to read. | All HEIs | 23/08/10 |
Research on other HEIs that have used repositories. Put findings on project blog. | RJ | 23/08/10 |
Read all literature review summaries on blog, and consider what can be taken from those other projects to support us with our training and advocacy strategy and materials. | All | next meeting date |
Consider the user survey – what do we want to achieve? What are we trying to find out? Who is it aimed at? (Multiple groups?) How do we set up the survey to get the best information? | All | next meeting date |
Co-ordinate investigations of possible dates for piggy-backing project dissemination on to existing events. | LD | next meeting date |
Clarify with JISC what they mean by dissemination events. | LD | next meeting date |
Next Steps:
2nd Project meeting (Sept in Exeter) – Shape the detail of entire project strategy for workshops, materials required (perhaps a mixed selection of materials to pick and choose as a ‘workshop pack’), user survey.
Key output – 1 advocacy plan per institution
2 to 3 months – initialise advocacy activities, write advocacy materials, create training materials, plan workshops, draw up survey
Pilot workshop (in Nov/Dec) – dummy run-through, piggy-backing on to an existing event for 1–2 hours
Advocacy presentation – recording for YouTube as part of materials
3rd Project meeting (Dec/Jan in Leeds) – Possibly including a workshop pilot dummy run-through if that has not yet happened
Workshops (Jan to April) – outline schedule: 2 at each of 5 HEIs = 10 workshops funded as part of RePosit project
User survey (Jan to April) – running alongside workshops (and using workshop attendees where indicated)
N.B. RJ to look at whether a survey link can go up on the Symplectic log-in page
4th Project meeting (end of project) – to evaluate project results
JISC reports – evaluation report and lessons learned (to disseminate)
Dissemination events – to bring our best practice results t the wider community. 2 x smaller events (north and south of the UK?) trying to piggy-back on to existing JISCDepo community events. Possibly a free extra third event tied in with the Symplectic user group annual meeting?
Project end date – 20th July 2011
Risks: